Bhante V's meditation and sutta teachings are quite sound. When I started out my understanding of Buddhism was confusing when I thought it was good. When asked questions I found I could not explain things well and often ran into conundrums. Following Bhante V's method and vocabulary definitions has helped me tremendously in linking suttas to meditation and bringing a new found confidence in my understanding. So as a Buddhist teacher he is really quite good despite his quirky personality.

The commentaries which most people start off with push us in a direction that is farther off than translations of suttas. The suttas are the closest thing we have to confirming that our practice is good and true. There are many different "enlightenments" out there that sure do feel good and liberating but the Buddhist goal is total and complete Awakening which the Buddha alone has laid before us (in the suttas). When you have a good confident understanding of the suttas (by knowing and practicing) and how they inter-relate then you can start reading commentaries as a helpful resource. Otherwise you will be left with a dim candle in a house of mirrors.

No, but having done a retreat with the Venerable I can say it was a helpful experience for me. I do admit he has a bit of an odd character and says things I do not always agree with but his teachings on the suttas and about meditation are the best I've received so far.

I originally started the thread because I was intrigued by the video and was wondering how the rubber met the road with his teachings. Instead I got a lot of people posting factionalist gripes. I understand why they are offended, but I was curious about the results of that meditation, not the other stuff. You gave what I wanted, some feedback about the method from someone who used it. Thank you.

In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

Jhana4 wrote:I originally started the thread because I was intrigued by the video and was wondering how the rubber met the road with his teachings. Instead I got a lot of people posting factionalist gripes. .

The problem is that it seems to be difficult to discuss Bhante V's teachings without having to contend with factionalistic claims (from him and others) that the rest of the Theravada tradition got it wrong.

It might be an interesting topic of discussion for another thread why a few teachers, and/or their supporters, generate such discord, whereas most don't. I don't recall anyone saying: "Here's a teaching from Ajahn Chah, who is the only teacher worth listening to...". Probably because Ajahn Chah (and any number of teachers) completely avoid an abrasive approach.

[By the way, Ajahn Chah is someone I respect but don't pay that much attention to.]

I don't see that at all. You can find stories where people who either had too much or too little book learning were steered in the opposite direction. He is quoted as saying "the only book reading is the heart" to those thinking/studying too much and making comments about acting like a buffalo to those who thought too little. And clearly he had a deep knowledge both of theory and practice.

I can't seem to find it online but meindzai recounts it here... "His teachings come across as very personal, rather than mechanical, and he seems to have really disliked Abhidhamma. (Comparing it once to going to a chicken shack and removing the shit rather than the eggs)." - viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7346#p116588

Anyway, as jhana4 said, he doesn't want this to be about sectarian factionalism.

[So now you see the differences. And you really see them because you are having the direct experience. You see them for yourself whether what I am teaching you is correct or not. By reading the suttas so you know what it says about each jhana, you know what the experience is. So you won’t have to believe me. I don’t want you to believe me. I want you to believe your own experience.] Bh V

[No one can know the Dhamma for another. We can chant, read, discuss and listen, but unless we watch all that arises, we will not know the Dhamma by ourselves. There's only one place where Dhamma can be known, in one's own heart and mind. It has to be a personal experience which comes about through constant observation of oneself. Meditation helps. Unless one inquires into one's own reactions and knows why one wants one thing and rejects another, one hasn't seen Dhamma.] Ayya Khema

["To be known by the wise,each for themselves."] The Buddha

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

retrofuturist wrote:Anyway, as jhana4 said, he doesn't want this to be about sectarian factionalism.

And as Mike says: "The problem is that it seems to be difficult to discuss Bhante V's teachings without having to contend with factionalistic claims (from him and others) that the rest of the Theravada tradition got it wrong. " The talks (videos) by him that have been posted here are interwoven with "sectarian factionalism":

Even today if you go to teachers of one-pointed concentration and ask them: “How does craving arise?” Or you ask them: “What is craving?” They can’t tell you. “Craving is desire.” “Let go of all desire.” [A gesture of” huh?] But they are serious; that is what they tell you. I know because I asked many, many very big monks this question and that’s the answer they give me. They don’t know how craving arises; they don’t know how to recognize it when it does arise; they don’t know how to let it go. Now, doesn’t that sound a little bit different from what I am teaching?